People’s stated views are often socially strategic. Nothing wrong with noticing such biases as long as you apply the same lens to yourself as others, which I do.
I think these are exactly the incentives that drive people to say things they would otherwise regard as harmful or wrong:
“One might argue that they want to be contrarian, or that they want to be part of an exclusive club, that they want to feel better than everyone else.”
Yes, I get that, but my point is more general. I’m saying that a general disadvantage with this way of discussing via ad hominem-arguments is that people are unlikely to be able to use them in a fair and rational way: they are going to be too lenient against themselves and too strict against their opponents. Hence why they should be used with caution (though they can and must be used to some extent).
People’s stated views are often socially strategic. Nothing wrong with noticing such biases as long as you apply the same lens to yourself as others, which I do.
I think these are exactly the incentives that drive people to say things they would otherwise regard as harmful or wrong:
“One might argue that they want to be contrarian, or that they want to be part of an exclusive club, that they want to feel better than everyone else.”
In practise, people are much better at spotting others’ biases than their own.
Then get other people to tell you them. My point is in the above I am not claiming other people are doing anything different from me.
Yes, I get that, but my point is more general. I’m saying that a general disadvantage with this way of discussing via ad hominem-arguments is that people are unlikely to be able to use them in a fair and rational way: they are going to be too lenient against themselves and too strict against their opponents. Hence why they should be used with caution (though they can and must be used to some extent).